Is that lab report real?
Your vendor sent a Certificate of Analysis to prove the peptide is what they say it is. Anyone with a PDF editor can make one. Photograph it, drop the PDF, or paste the text. 40-odd forensic checks run in your browser — on what the document says, and on how the file itself was made.
What's a COA, and where do I find mine?
A Certificate of Analysis is the lab receipt for your vial. A real one is produced by an analytical lab that actually ran your batch through an instrument — usually HPLC for purity and mass spectrometry to confirm the compound's weight. It names the batch, the method, the numbers, the lab, and the date.
Where to find it: vendors post them on the product page, email them with the order, or print a QR code on the vial label. If you ask and there isn't one, that answer is itself the result.
Why fakes are everywhere: making one takes a PDF editor and ten minutes. No regulator audits them. No penalty exists for inventing one. So most buyers glance at a big "99.4%" and stop reading, which is exactly what a fabricator is counting on.
Send the PDF, not a photo of it, if you can
A PDF carries evidence a photograph throws away. Every PDF records the software that wrote it, when it was created, when it was last saved, and how many times it has been saved since. A certificate printed by a lab's instrument software says so. One laid out by hand in a design tool says that too, and no amount of careful wording in the body text can change it.
It also lets the checks compare what the document claims against what the file actually contains — whether the "chromatogram attached on page 3" is really there, for instance. Those checks simply cannot run on a photo.
Photos still work. You just get fewer answers.
What this can't do
It reads the document, not the drug. No photograph can tell you what is dissolved inside a sealed vial. Not this tool, not any tool, not any app that claims otherwise. Light bouncing off glass carries no information about a molecule in solution. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
So a clean score means one thing only: the paperwork is internally consistent and behaves the way a real lab's paperwork behaves. A careful forger with a chemistry background can still produce a document that passes every check here. Passing is not proof. Failing, though, is close to conclusive — real labs do not make these mistakes.
The only way to know what is in your vial is to send a sample to an independent analytical lab yourself, with your own name on the order. Everything short of that is inference. This tool makes the inference as sharp as a document can support, and then stops, honestly, at the edge of what it knows.
What this browser remembers
nothing checked yet
Each check leaves a small record here — the lot number, the compound, the scores, and a fingerprint of the text. Not the document itself. It exists so the tool can catch things one document can never show: the same certificate sent for two different batches, one lot number reused across two compounds, a lab whose paperwork keeps failing. It stays in this browser. There is no account for it to sync to.
Straight answers
Where does my document go?
Nowhere. The text recognition, the PDF parsing, and every one of the checks run inside this browser tab. Your document is never uploaded, never stored on a server, and never seen by anyone but you. There is no account and no database of documents.
Being precise about the network, since a vague claim here would be worth nothing: the page fetches its own code and fonts when it loads, and it fetches a small reference file so the checks stay current. That request sends nothing about you or your document — it is the same file every visitor gets. Nothing else leaves the page unless you press a button that says it will.
Load the page, turn off your wifi, and it still works. That is the actual proof, and you can test it right now.
Does a high score mean my peptide is safe?
No, and anyone claiming that is lying to you. A high score means the document does not show the fingerprints of fabrication. The vial could still be underdosed, contaminated, degraded from bad shipping, or the COA could be genuine but belong to a completely different batch than the one you received. The document and the vial are two separate questions. This answers one of them.
Why are there two scores?
Because one number could not tell the difference between a document that was forged and a document that was merely thin, and those are completely different situations for the person holding the vial.
Integrity only moves when the document says something wrong: a value that contradicts another value, or one that contradicts physics. Staying silent about something never costs integrity.
Completeness is how much of a real certificate is present. A one-line note saying "99% pure" can be perfectly honest and almost entirely empty. It should score high on one and low on the other, and now it does.
Is this accusing my vendor of fraud?
No. It reports what a document does and does not contain. A low score can mean a fabricated certificate, or a real lab result typed up carelessly by someone in a warehouse. Those look similar on paper and this tool cannot tell them apart — which is why absence is never counted as evidence of forgery, and why only a genuinely impossible value gets called impossible. What you get is a specific, non-hysterical list, so you can ask your vendor a precise question instead of a vague one. Good vendors answer precise questions well. That response is your real signal.
Why is it free, and how would I know if that changed?
Because the check costs nothing to run once it is written. It is arithmetic and pattern matching, not an API call. There is no upsell, no vendor is paying for placement, and no "verified" badge is for sale. If a version of this ever starts ranking vendors for money, stop trusting it. Including this one. The code is public, so you can check what it actually does rather than take that on faith.
Can I check what the checks actually do?
Yes, and you should. Every check is listed in the documentation with what it looks for and what it costs, and the source is on GitHub. A tool that tells you to distrust unverifiable claims has an obligation not to be one.